Kyoto Protocol

[Biggie]

Re: Kyoto

Reve-y,

Let me point it out to you expressly because you just don't seem to be getting it.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SCIENCE AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL.

I have not denied the science. I have denounced the Kyoto Protocol.

**Biggie was being what is generally known as an idiot, so I took a paragraph out

 

[peapod]

Re: Kyoto

Oh spin another yarn tiny. You come here just to go after the rev. You are from somewhere else.. :roll: bringing your grievences againist the rev here disquised as tiny. :sleepy1: Its lame, if you have something to say than do it without taking shots at the rev. :roll:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Biggie hasn't actually said why he dislikes Kyoto. He has shown no knowledge of the accord itself, has presented no sources, and has really done nothing but come here to cause trouble.

Biggie is a troll.

 

[peapod]

Re: Kyoto

You know something...you make a good point there rev, why has biggie not really said anything about koyto in this thread??? Yes biggie lets hear them and your legitmate links.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Meantime, I have a few more links.


melting mountains

parks canada

National Geographic

 

[EternalSunshine]

Re: Kyoto

The fact is that climate is warming steadily and the change is happening faster then you'd think. If anyone needs proof of that they can go walk on the ice in the Arctic, that's every year thinner. And good luck.

Another fact is that (at least in part) this change of climate is due to human activity.

Saddest fact of all is that, no matter what we do, we can never reverse the damage that we already caused, but we can and have to do everything possible to slow down the whole process, to give a chance to people and ecosystems to adapt.

The Kyoto Protocol may not be perfect solution for that problem, but I don't see anyone else doing something better and more efficient. It has encountered numerous problems, and I'm sure it was not easy to come up with a document that would be at the same time legally binding, politically acceptable and offer an efficient solution for such a huge and global problem.

 

[no1important]

RE: Kyoto

Well said EternalSunshine !

One only has to see what global warming is doing to the Polar Bears in Northern Manitoba.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

The polar bears have a problem, so do people living in small northern communities. We use ice roads a lot here. That's the most efficient way to get goods north. The roads are ready later and become unsafe sooner. The expense is huge because everything then has to be flown in on small planes or sent in by barge in the summer.

In places where houses were built on permafrost, they have a whole other problem...their houses are falling over as things melt and shift. In some northern communities, house moving is becoming the major industry.

 

[peapod]

Re: Kyoto

Eternal is right, koyto is not perfect, but at least it is a start. You have to start somewhere. Its a begining. I have heard that the inuit do not have a name for a robin in their language, because robins are not part of their landscape. Robins now appear there. Why do people only want to do something about a real problem when its to late.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

Kyoto isn't perfect. One of the things that nobody likes to talk about about is that a lot of its imperfections come from concessions that were necessary to get the US onside. Then George Bush came along and pulled out anyway.

Canada also pushed for concessions, both within and without of Kyoto, mostly demands made by the Klein government and the oil industry. Most of those demands were also met, but the Klein government is still opposing Kyoto.

 

[mr_fitz]

Re: Kyoto

I do not know Biggie, I have not explored his behaviour on the forums, but I think you are all being unfair to him/her in this particular thread. I disagree wholeheartedly with most of what s/he has to say, but dismissing her/him outright and not directly addressing her/his points seems somewhat unfair.

That said, Biggie, there is nothing in Kyoto that prevents private-sector solutions to reducing emissions that contribute to global climate change. Where do you think the emission credits idea came from? I think all Kyoto and non-Kyoto signed governments are RELYING on the private sector to step up with imaginative solutions. Self-regulation, that is a different story.

Everyone puts the onus on "Kyoto", like it is some distant policy, solely the responsiblity of government and industry, but very little talk about individual-level consumption. The solution is simple - consume less, consume smarter. Marry lower/smarter consumption with private and public sector ingenuity and Kyoto targets should be much easier to meet. For example, maybe gasoline should cost $2/litre pricing in the environmental costs of emisisons (not just tailpipe, but extraction and refining).

 

[peapod]

Re: Kyoto

Mr. Fitz you have not been here long, biggie is just someone who was banned and has returned as someone else. He comes for the rev, who he is harressing at other sites. He will not discuss koyto, because it will expose who he is. This is pathetic sick stuff.
Again biggie lets here your koyto.

 

[mr_fitz]

Re: Kyoto

Mr. Fitz you have not been here long, biggie is just someone who was banned and has returned as someone else. He comes for the rev, who he is harressing at other sites. He will not discuss koyto, because it will expose who he is. This is pathetic sick stuff.

Ignoring may be more diplomatic and effective. If anyone brings down the level of argument - disengage, rather than launch personal attacks. Two wrongs...
(my 2cents).

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

Everyone puts the onus on "Kyoto", like it is some distant policy, solely the responsiblity of government and industry, but very little talk about individual-level consumption.

That's an excellent point, mr_fitz. I suggest everybody visit the One Tonne Challenge to see what they can do. Most of what's there is not only a good way to reduce greenhouse emissions, but it will save you money in the long run.

For example, maybe gasoline should cost $2/litre pricing in the environmental costs of emisisons (not just tailpipe, but extraction and refining).

There are some things that should be done in this area as well. The subsidies to the oil and coal industries should stop. That would push up prices a bit, but so what? Lower-emitting vehicles should be subsidized. Governments should be promoting the use of motorcycles and scooters (with emissions controls on them).

Gas guzzler taxes should be in place with exemptions for those who need larger vehicles for their jobs.

 

[peapod]

Re: Kyoto

true fitz..very true. My mother always said so to...trouble is I digress all the time, a defect of character I must work on much harder. :wink:

 

[MMMike]

Re: Kyoto

I suggest everybody visit the One Tonne Challenge to see what they can do. Most of what's there is not only a good way to reduce greenhouse emissions, but it will save you money in the long run.

It is embarrassing watching those Rick Mercer commercials for the 'One Tonne Challenge'. This is the government's plan for meeting our goals? We need to use a carrot and a stick - tax exemptions for retrofitting your home or buying energy efficient appliances/cars, and higher taxes on energy from fossil fuels.

For example, maybe gasoline should cost $2/litre pricing in the environmental costs of emisisons (not just tailpipe, but extraction and refining).

There are some things that should be done in this area as well. The subsidies to the oil and coal industries should stop. That would push up prices a bit, but so what? Lower-emitting vehicles should be subsidized. Governments should be promoting the use of motorcycles and scooters (with emissions controls on them).

Gas guzzler taxes should be in place with exemptions for those who need larger vehicles for their jobs.

Gas prices are far too low and don't take into account the environmental and health consequences. Liscencing should be changed so that you don't have to get an M (motorcycle) class lisence to operate a scooter. And I absolutely do not agree that there should be an exemption for work required larger vehicles. The extra cost in fuel must ultimately be passed to the consumer. Why subsidize gas guzzlers for any reason?

 

[jakewabbo]

Re: Kyoto

Everyone puts the onus on "Kyoto", like it is some distant policy, solely the responsiblity of government and industry, but very little talk about individual-level consumption.

That's an excellent point, mr_fitz. I suggest everybody visit the One Tonne Challenge to see what they can do. Most of what's there is not only a good way to reduce greenhouse emissions, but it will save you money in the long run.

For example, maybe gasoline should cost $2/litre pricing in the environmental costs of emisisons (not just tailpipe, but extraction and refining).

There are some things that should be done in this area as well. The subsidies to the oil and coal industries should stop. That would push up prices a bit, but so what? Lower-emitting vehicles should be subsidized. Governments should be promoting the use of motorcycles and scooters (with emissions controls on them).

Gas guzzler taxes should be in place with exemptions for those who need larger vehicles for their jobs.

Mr. Rev,

I couldn't help but notice that you are from Winterpeg. I can just see you know riding to work on a motorcycle bright and early on a january morning. Kyoto, in my opinion, and that is just that.. my opinion, is based upon junk science... the same science that tells us one week, chocolate will save your colon one week, and will give you eye cancer the next. No I do not have proof, research or other.... because I said it was an opinion... Some people don't beleive in Evolution (while there is science that backs it up) I choose not to beleive that a 1 ton challange will do anything. With countries like China, and the US not taking part, what is the use?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

And I absolutely do not agree that there should be an exemption for work required larger vehicles. The extra cost in fuel must ultimately be passed to the consumer. Why subsidize gas guzzlers for any reason?

Don't misunderstand me, MMMike. They wouldn't get a break on the $2.00 per litre gasoline, the gas guzzler tax I'd like to see is one paid every year when you register the vehicle. Farmers, construction workers, couriers etc do still need larger vehicles. They are also not generally in a financial position to replace their vehicles every year.

The high gasoline prices would force them to get alternative or fuel efficient models as soon as they could, and to drive efficient vehicles as much as possible, but since they legitimately require large vehicles they shouldn't have to pay a guzzler tax on top of that.

The guzzler tax I'd like to see works like this: It is based on the class of vehicle, the kilometres driven yearly, and the mileage rating of the vehicle. Using my vehicles as an example (and pretending that the Big Green Truck had a motor, because it's the gas guzzler)...

When I needed the big green truck for work it would have been exempt, so the insurance would have stayed at $300/year. When I quit doing that kind of work the insurance would have gone up to $600/year. If I got a job that required me to drive it a lot (commuting) the insurance would have risen to $900/year.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

I couldn't help but notice that you are from Winterpeg. I can just see you know riding to work on a motorcycle bright and early on a january morning. Kyoto, in my opinion, and that is just that.. my opinion, is based upon junk science... the same science that tells us one week, chocolate will save your colon one week, and will give you eye cancer the next. No I do not have proof, research or other.... because I said it was an opinion... Some people don't beleive in Evolution (while there is science that backs it up) I choose not to beleive that a 1 ton challange will do anything. With countries like China, and the US not taking part, what is the use?

First of all I work out of my house, so I don't drive to work. Second of all it isn't always winter in Winnipeg.

As for the junk science thing...I've put up plenty of links. The scientific case for anthrpogenic global warming has been made time and again. The greenhouse effect is very real. It isn't a theory, without it the planet would be a chunk of frozen rock. Global warming is also a fact. The records clearly show it happening. Changes in climate have traditionally been driven by some mechanism...meteor strikes, volcanic action...whatever. We are the variable this time around.

If you don't trust science, then I suggest that you stay away from all science and technology. It isn't about opinion though, it is about providing proof. That's how we know that evolution is real, and that's how we know that the crap we spew into the air is warming up the planet.

China is taking part, they are just on a different schedule because they are not responsible for the gasses currently in the atmosphere. They have also done several things, from efficient housing to developing alternative fuels, to buying "clean" coal technology to address their emissions.

The US is the big problem, but I doubt they will be allowed to continue increasing their emissions while the rest of the world addresses the problem. They will be brought to heel eventually. The rest of the world will not stand for them not curbing emissions. There is already talk of suits under the WTO because their free emissions amount to a subsidy.

 

[jakewabbo]

RE: Kyoto

Good points.. But like I said it was just my opinion... something that even my GF says changes less then my socks are changed.. LOL